BHOLA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition, at the instance of the pre-emptor within the meaning of Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), seeks a direction to quash the resolution dated 7.7.1997 (Annexure-1), passed by the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, whereby the revision application filed under the provisions of Section 32 of the Act has been rejected, the order of the learned appellate authority has been upheld, and the Petitioner's claim for preemption has been rejected.

(2.) A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this writ petition may be indicated. Respondent No. 6 had alienated plot No. 304, appertaining to khata No. 6, covering an area of 5 kathas 12 dhurs, situate in Mauza-Parbezabad in Sonepur Anchal, District-Saran, in favour of Respondent No. 5, by registered deed of absolute sale dated 24.11.1993 (Annexure-3). The Petitioner promptly filed an application dated 17.12.1995, claiming pre-emption with respect to the vended plot. He, inter alia, set up a case in his application that he is a co-sharer as well as adjoining raiyat with respect to the vended plot. Respondent No. 5 placed on record her show-cause wherein she, inter alia, stated that the land in question is not cultivable land, and is really homestead land surrounded by two residential houses. It is further stated that Respondent No. 5 had purchased the same for construction of her residential house. It is also stated therein that the same lies within the area notified to be under the Patna Regional Development Authority. The Petitioner's application on contest was allowed by order dated 27.12.1995 (Annexure-4), inter alia, on the ground that he is an adjoining raiyat, and the land in question is fit for agricultural purposes. It was stated that Respondent No. 5 did not lead evidence at all in support of her case set up in her show-cause. The learned first authority, therefore, allowed the Petitioner's claim for preemption with respect to the vended plot.

(3.) While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the learned revisional authority has made a serious error in accepting the statements made in the show-cause of Respondent No. 5 as gospel truth, which was wholly impermissible in view of the situation that no evidence at all was led before the learned first authority to substantiate the case set up in the show-cause. He next submits that the learned appellate authority as well as the learned revisional authority have made serious error in travelling beyond the statements made in the show-cause which is impermissible in law. He relies on the order of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Moghal Singh and Ors. v. Member, Board of Revenue and Ors.,1981 BBCJ 97. He submits that the materials on record lead to the only conclusion that it is meant for agricultural purposes. He also submits that the fact that the land in question is notified to be within the area of the Patna Regional Development Authority does not by itself mean that the land in question has ceased to be for agricultural purposes. He relies on the following reported judgments: